Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
journal" is next. ♪ host: this wednesday morning we would love to hear your take on foreign policy. specifically on what the governor -- former governor massachusetts, mitt romney, and president barack obama had said yesterday. specifically yesterday said -- specifically we want your general level confidence in each candidate on the area of foreign policy. here are the numbers to call. for democrats, 202-737-0001. for republicans, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. if you would like to take part in the program, there are different ways to do that. twitter.com/c-spanwj,an.o facebook.com or e-mail at journal@c-span.org. "the baltimore sun" encapsulate the speeches yesterday. they pointed out that president barack obama made an impassioned defense of the expression of freedom worldwide. mitt romney urged other nations to emulate the free economy and suggested that the obama leadership in the middle east has been inadequate and reactive. this is a short piece to start us off from the president at united nations yesterday, talking about the middle east. [video clip] >> i beli
on foreign policy. the war in afghanistan is drawing to a close. the plans have been laid out for troops to return home. what is an acceptable outcome to the war in afghanistan, and what is our responsibility to achieve that outcome after u.s. troops returned? >> we have always had difficult returned with describing that, and as a result we need to get our troops out of afghanistan as quickly as we can. >> before the president's timeline? >> it is time to bring our troops home and stop spending $2 billion a week in afghanistan. we need that money. >> the united states does not have responsibility any longer? >> we cannot rebuild afghanistan for ever. we cannot do that. having unrealistic goals and spending more money is the wrong approach. i want to say on this, all three of my brothers served in the military. our service members are incredible. they will do anything we ask of them. they work hard, they are resourceful, but that means we owe them an obligation to put them out in harm's way when we have clear goals in mind, when it is clear what we're going to do, how we will accomplish i
tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern. the last debate will have a theme of foreign policy. the carnegie endowment for international peace recently hosted a panel on the president's role in leading foreign policy talking about american influence, the changing international order, and more. among the panelists is a thomas friedman. this is about an hour and half. >> good evening. my name is david rothkopf and i will be the moderator for this carnegie endowment discussion about how the next american president should engage the world. this is a debate format it discussion. we have a terrific group here. on my right, we have john ikenberry from princeton. next to him as thomas friedman from "the new york times." then just a matter is from the carnegie endowment. then robert keeton from the brookings institute. -- jessica matthews and then robert kagan. i will open up with a quotation from one or two of the panelists and we will then have some interaction on the theme of the ". lanham alaskan questions about related issues. at the end of each one of these 20 or 25 minute sections i will look to you for
callers came up with several points. one of them spoke to foreign policy. you have touched a little bit on that. how would you describe your own at form policy approach? guest: we should not -- we should involve ourselves diplomatically, but that is really it. we should be the shining beacon on the hill. but our military interventions where we are going in and we are determining another foreign dictator -- we are replacing one foreign dictator with another? our foreign aid has not been helping other countries, but propping up other governments. we are finding insurgents in syria? and a quarter of those are supposed to be al qaeda? did we do this in afghanistan? pinki -- and didn't we do this in afghanistan? didn't we ultimately bankroll osama bin laden? we are making enemies of the united states. the strohm strikes, yes, we hit the target, but we white out another quarter block. -- we wipe out another quarter block. we are killing civilians in this country in that were ostensibly there to help. we're continually making more and more enemies. if is no surprise that the unrest in the midd
at on a case by case basis. that those two issues of the foreign policy of the united states, as well as were we believe the military needs to be hored up. --: the defense budget does that sound right? guest: that sounds about right. caller: hello? host: go ahead. guest: good morning. caller: i have a couple of comments. i was disturbed by this conversation. miss blakey a corporate head and she has to do her job. things like this -- narrow minded republicans. i think americans want something different. we want peace. i know that is her job. host: your question, sir? caller: what are they fighting for? they want to give the american people less things. it is not fair. we to build back america and create jobs here. the idea of having a psychological advantage is -- host: we will leave it there. guest: everything i've been talking about this morning goes to the issue of preserving peace and stability. in the world we live and, peace must be maintained through strength. that is something most people accept. there are a number of factors in our economy. defense and military spending has a major ef
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5